At the tail end of the March 7, 2018, Riverside City Council meeting, Ward 2 Councilman Andy Melendrez requested an investigation into Mayor Bailey’s Office to determine if confidential materials related to the Mayor’s right to veto a contract of a City officer (i.e. the City Manager) were released to the public without Council authorization.

QUIET, UNASSUMING, NICE GUY ANDY ABOUT TO SINK THE KNIFE INTO MAYOR BAILEY?

Skip forward to this week and we learn that item has been mysteriously removed from the upcoming City Council agenda. Was it delayed because of the conflict-of-interest with Riverside City Attorney Gary Geuss, as identified in fine detail as part of Mayor Bailey’s writ of mandate filed just over a week ago? Was there a scheduling conflict on behalf of one of the key parties? Or, like the free-riding Press Enterprise as of late, is the City of Riverside simply waiting for TMC to publish the results of its investigation saving taxpayers gobs of money (if you believe the latter, we have a library to sell you)? Well, we won’t disappoint then (i.e. keep reading)!

And why might Mr. Colantuono’s judgment regarding this particular issue be perceived as just a tad bit biased? Well, maybe it’s the fact that he serves as a contracted City Attorney himself up in the Bay Area!

CLICK TO ENLARGE: THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY’S CLUB

In the alternative, Geuss could’ve just provided the City Council with a list of attorneys capable of handling this work and said, “I’m out. Have at it boys.” But, stealing a line from Jason Hunter, “the unofficial slogan of the City of Riverside is that there’s no conflict-of-interest that’s too big that we can’t ignore,” instead he inserted himself right into the middle of controversial decision in which he has a financial interest…and that we predict ladies and gentlemen is going to lead to trouble down the line…right here in the ole’ River City.

Once again, TMC will save the day (and $10-$25K of the taxpayers’ moola) on this one: THE MAYOR DID IT…in the new Library…by throwing a Wrench into Team Russo’s plans. And below, we provide for everyone to see: the Mayor leaked the Attorney/Client-protected outside legal opinion of Michael Colantuono to anyone he thought could lend a revolver, lead pipe, rope, knife, candlestick, hand.

The statement also rejects the idea that anyone but the city attorney “be permitted to obtain counsel at taxpayers’ expense.”

Before announcing his veto of Russo’s contract, Bailey received a letter from attorney Philip Kohn of Rutan & Tucker to back his opinion that — despite City Attorney Gary Geuss’ position — the charter allows the mayor to veto a contract with the city manager.

Kohn wrote to Bailey on Feb. 9 that he had been told the city charter doesn’t allow the mayor to hire legal counsel without the City Council’s consent. To avoid any conflict, Kohn wrote, he would not charge the city for any of the services he provided or provide any further legal advice on the matter.

UPDATE 3/26/18: RUTAN & TUCKER USED AS A SUCKER? BELOW IS THE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2018, SENT TO MAYOR BAILEY AFTER REALIZING THEIR FIRM WAS PUT IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION POSITION BY THE MAYOR. LawyerPhilip Kohn states that his firm will not be providing any further legal opinions or assistance on the veto matter since the Riverside City Charter does not authorize the Mayor to hire outside legal counsel without approval or consent from City Council. After realizing that their firm had a conflict-of-interest with the City itself, for whom they provide lucrative outside counsel work, they indicate the Mayor’s legal advice was at ‘no charge’…so as to not muddle up their taxpayer gravy train.

Did Mayor Bailey consider allowing a proxy to file a lawsuit on his behalf while he sat in closed session, and based upon his record, leaked out more confidential information in order to benefit himself politically? You betcha. Just look in the “Rusty Files.”

And you know what, Andy Melendrez? Nobody cares. Nobody cares because – intentionally or not, William “Beetle Bailey,” through his entirely selfish (John Russo is a meanie…wahhh!!!), unethical actions is going to end up cleaning the Riverside Swamp of profiteer-bureaucrats/wannabe-politicians, and we’re just fine with that. We’ll deal with Beetle later.

NOTHING BUT CLEAR SKIES FOR MAYOR “BEETLE BAILEY” AHEAD

And in an ironic twist not lost on Riverside corruption historians, a central figure in the Soubirous-Davis witchhunt of just 3-1/2 years ago accused of leaking information to the Press Enterprise at the time, will be outed soon as the, “man behind the scenes,” organizing his own kangaroo court on our dime…but that story about that Councilman (codenamed: M.S.) is for another day. In the meantime, enjoy the Peoples’ Councilman, good guy-turned bad guy-turned good guy again, Ward 4 Councilman Chuck Conder…and the circle of life continues.

Councilman Chuck Conder says it stinks at City Hall! Outlandish city contracts and ridiculous utility rate hikes are ripping off the citizenry!! It’s time for people to “let their voice be heard,” he says in a passionate speech last Monday.The city manager lavish new contract comes on the heels of a proposed average 3% hike in electricity and 4.5% hike in water that will begin July 1, 2018, and continue for 5 years, with 1/5 of the hike consisting of new taxes, to cover budget shortfalls for infrastructure projects we are sold told. Add to that the city’s $600 million pension liability debt, and ever-increasing taxes to pay for it, and it begs the question: should the city manager be paid 25% more from the public purse and businesses and residents feel the pinch of a higher-cost-of-living and less government services? These financial decisions have one councilman, Chuck Conder, concerned.

When Moreno Valley activist and local radio host Roy Bleckert asked Conder what can be done, Conder delivered a passionate speech stating, “You need to take back your government…They’re laughing at us… They’re saying ‘got away with this one…with that one.’ We as a people have got to get our voice back! If you can give up three minutes in front of the city council, great. If you can’t, send an e-comment, write. Let your voice be heard.”

BLAST FROM THE PAST: 02.23.2016: Local community activist Kevin Dawson skewers City Council regarding the failure to address outside legal counsel without contracts and the budget deficit! Ignored by Council, ignored by the City Attorney Greg Priamos and ignored by head of the Finance Committee Councilwoman and current Budget Engagement Commissioner (sigh) Nancy Hart…. Dawson was right all along!

DEDICATED TO OUR CITY EMPLOYEES AND THE PARTNERSHIP COMPENSATION MODEL

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTY’S MOST, “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “POLITICALLY INCORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

Local resident Jason Hunter exposes the truth about the newly-signed gold-plated contracts of both City Manager John Russo and City Attorney Gary Geuss. Turns out the current contracts were not accompanied by an amendment to a resolution called the Master Fringe Benefits and Salary Plan, signed by the Mayor as required by City’s Municipal Code (local law). That particular resolution grants authority to the Council to pay certain salaries and benefits to certain positions. And the jury at TMC believes the omittance of this document to be intentional given other recent employee deals. But what the heck do we know!?

When both Russo and Geuss were initially employed, this particular resolution was included within the agenda packet that contained their contracts. Three years later it magically disappears. Hunter states the two ramifications of what’s been perpetrated: 1) the contracts terms negotiated outside the authority of the resolution are invalid (and the monies need to be returned immediately to the City’s treasury) and 2) upon re-introduction of the resolution, the Mayor has the right to veto the terms, as he does all resolutions under Section 413 of the City Charter.

Who would have known? We could extrapolate that City Attorney Gary Geuss, City Manager John Russo and even Human Resources Director Stephanie Holloman would have known. Incidentally, Holloman and Geuss we hear know each other from their employment with the City/Port of Los Angeles. Perhaps even Councilman Chris MacArthur could have known given how he eagerly tried to override Mayor Bailey’s veto by signing Russo’s contract as Mayor Pro-Tem. Maybe even Councilman Jim Perry, who signed Geuss’ deal, was in on the scheme.

Who also should have 100% with-out-doubt-known is City Clerk Colleen J. Nicol. Her 30% raise over the past 2-1/2 years must have affected her emotional decision-making not to alert Mayor Bailey. She is either afraid of Russo and Geuss, or she’s simply a master at playing the game (and consequently cruising into retirement at your expense). In our experience, Colleen doesn’t miss a piece of paper at City Hall…what we’d call a pro’s pro…so what’s up? Whatever the reason, you can be sure TMC will find out!

Let’s not forget this quote from City Manager John Russo, “…as a child of immigrants with a scholarship Yale degree, and a top ten law school that I have to beg you to do and preserve what we all busted our tails to do to make this city move.” “But I assure you, I might be here in two years, and whether you extend my contract or not I’m not going to have any trouble getting a job. But if we vote no tonight, I cannot make any assurances to you about keeping this team together, that’s the reality that’s your choice!” More famous words for us Riverside Hillbilly’s is, “You can’t afford to have this team break up!” So what did Russo really mean? “I’m am so brilliant I’m going to screw Mayor Bailey and the taxpayer out of millions of dollars and they are so stupid they won’t even notice, and my cronies and I can live our much-deserved lavish lifestyles free of interference from the unwashed masses. Let them eat cake!” Our bet is the only cake we’ll be eating, John, will be at your going away party.

RIVERSIDE’S CONTRACT-GATE: ONE QUESTION REMAINS

UPDATE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO MAYOR BAILEY’S OFFICE: At the March 7, 2018, Riverside City Council meeting, Councilman Andy Melendrez requests an investigation into Mayor Bailey’s Office to determine if confidential materials related to the Mayor’s right to veto a contract of a City officer were released without Council authorization to the public. Rumor has it this request involves the Mayor’s Office releasing the Colantuono Legal Opinion (and hence violating the City’s Attorney/Client privilege) prior to it becoming a public document a few weeks ago. What? He’s requesting the formation of Special Counsel for this inquiry? Does he think the City of Riverside river water is full of the same rats found in the swamps of Washington D.C.? Shouldn’t have Andy requested Special Counsel to investigate the contract fraud Mr. Hunter speaks of instead?

As an aside we love how Andy is so nice and polite in this video right before he inserts the dagger of righteousness into the Mayor’s Office. All of sudden, after all these years, Andy wants “transparency,” into the dirty deeds done dirt cheap within the confines of City Hall. How marvelous! Andy should have just called TMC: we’ve already done the investigation for free! But alas, that’s for another day dear readers…

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTY’S MOST, “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “POLITICALLY INCORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

Can’t tell if this Riverside Tax Payer was Tased by the shock of Higher Sales Taxes, or simply stumbled on the Transparent California Web Site and found out what our Public Employees really make!

The City of Riverside currently has $472 million (and growing daily) in unfunded pension liabilities (money due to employees in the future that has no dedicated revenue stream at the moment). That’s more than 1 year’s general fund budget – you could shut down City Hall for a year and we’d still be $200 million short. This is simply not payable, the City’s answer is to pillage the taxpayer for more taxes. What we have been told by prior City Financial Officers, is that “we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem,” and I’ll leave it there. As compared to the City of FRESNO, which has NO Unfunded pension liabilities and a $300 million pension surplus! Go figure. The City of Fresno is not only doing their City right, they are doing their taxpayers right. It’s unfortunate that we have a culture of entitlement within the City of Riverside, specifically in public safety employees who believe they are worth more than what the market can bear.

The taxpayer of Riverside has been bullied, strong armed and shakedown by the public employees unions for years, and we are sick and tired of it! Taxpayers hate the City Union threats, “YOU MUST PAY US MORE, OR WE WILL SLOW SERVICES, OR YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY SERVICES!” Again what many taxpayers are telling TMC, is that they feel “a profound sense of betrayal by our City Government.” This is a City Government which left you behind, which didn’t protect your tax monies, which didn’t do what they meant and didn’t mean what they said and fiscally didn’t take your best interest at heart. The following is the cost per resident in order to fund total compensation including pensions in these cities 2014.

We don’t have any services now, that is because they, the City, have cut our services to pay the salaries of our so called “heroes,” Fire and Police, in lieu of their employer, the taxpayer. The Council of Riverside has been fiscally irresponsible for many years. Councilman Mike Soubirous is the exception. The problem has been that our City Council has been all purchased and paid for by Fire and Police Unions, especially Mayor Rusty Bailey. Of course, the Riverside Chamber of Commerce and the Rain Cross Group, support Measure-Z, because they couldn’t survive in the real world, without their taxpayer handout, they simply could not make it on their own. They are a good example of a City subsidized entity. City Pensions have been a priority to City Officials, as opposed to fixing our pot holes, cutting our trees, fixing our curbs and public safety. Why is that? Maybe because they are afraid of the dam unions? If you are week, you will get no where, if you are strong, you will challenge those who you supposedly run to represent, the taxpayers of the City of Riverside. As a representative you should represent them, the taxpayer, regardless of the consequence.

The City currently pays 35% of public safety employee salary every year to CalPERS; 25% for other employees. These rates are rising at meteoric levels as CalPERS realizes the full extent of their problem. Many of these employees have six figure salaries, and most have never paid 1 cent into their own CalPERS retirements, which max out at 90% of top salary when public employees retire at 50 (safety) or 55 (non-safety). There is nothing in the private sector that even remotely compares to these plans. In fact, for some of the top government earners, it would be illegal under IRS rules in the private sector for companies to fund such a level of retirement pay.

While the private sector has still not seen their total compensation (adjusted for inflation) getting back to 2006 levels, when you include these unfunded benefits; Riverside’s employees have been getting well over 10% raises for the past decade. Think about that: their compensation is up over 100%, while the rest of us have stagnated. It is squeezing out public services surely but steadily. They have literally hijacked the taxpayer to pay them more than should be reasonably compensated in the private sector. This is criminal!

Once the average citizen educates themselves about this Ponzi scheme, these guys (fire and police) are going to retire in their early 50s making hundreds of thousands a year, while the rest of us, in the real world, work to our late 60’s with not much more than Social Security (currently $32k/year) and whatever dollar you we’re able to save in our IRA/401k (typical American has enough money for another $20k/year in income in retirement). Then what do these public workers do next when they retire at 50? They go get another City job and work a second pension. Folks like us are not going to work another 15 more years for packages half as good as government workers, it simply makes no economical sense.. The taxpayer is not going to work harder, IN ORDER TO FUND THESE GOLDEN PARACHUTE DEALS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, while accepting lower quality services from their government. This isn’t fair, and they, the unions, don’t care.

We need leadership and reform…none on the horizon that I see however. Instead, our electeds’ have chosen to attempt to pillage the general public with increased taxes. The earners are already leaving California for places like Nevada and Texas; this will just hasten municipal bankruptcies. New contract have employees contributing 6% eventually to CalPERS, if raises are at least 2% per year. By that time the City will be contributing the other 39% that’s being required. And by tying their salaries to increased revenues under the Partnership Compensation Model, one can look forward to public safety union propaganda in the mail to pass new taxes, new developments, and higher utility bills every year…brilliant.

Remember, what seemingly appears to be the entitlement factor by Public Sector Employees, may be their own undoing. Please continue to laugh in our faces. The general public did not vote for your retirement packages. They were a result of “elected officials” seeking special interest votes. I find it will end in tears, not only for you, but for the taxpayer! Union contracts should never be voted without public involvement! After all we are the rightful employer.

When you look at total compensation, including benefits, pensions, over time and other pay, you will understand that what is paid out to public employee’s, is more than the base pay. These cost our hidden from the public! Purposely? Good question. Further, the revenue stream is not there, the contracts were made without financially assessing the final impact on the taxpayer. Therefore, what we have is an unfunded pension liability, right? The Council Owns this Fiscal Mess, including Davis! Not listening to the Public. Our current City Manager John Russo, who is banking on the taxpayer, tells Council Publicly to discount Public Comment! “Asinine” and “morally corrupt,” as one public commenter indicated..Kevin Dawson to City Manager John Russo.

When you look at 250 employees at the City of Riverside making nearly $200K per year, it’s really 250 employees at the City making nearly $200K per year in total compensation, which includes their base pay, over time, other pay and benefits, which is not clearly addressed by them!

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Bottom line, this deal, like the previous firefighters and police deals, is a disaster for both the general public and the union members. It creates the perverse incentive for our police and fire employees, through their unions, to support all new revenues measures (i.e. taxes, higher utility rates, new development)…like Measure Z (local sales tax increase). It creates a us vs. them game concerning our wallets, which will create “distrust” issues (not the kind of thing public safety should be doing, particularly right now).

What Riverside Police Union President Brian Smith states in this video is inaccurate and defective. President Sgt. Smith’s leadership within the Police Union is less than can be desired. His care of his fellow police members monies is abhorrent. The embezzlement loss of over $346K of police member monies, with over 15 Riverside Police Officers on their Boards, only makes you think how competent they are with accounting knowledge. According to the Press Enterprise article, RPOA Vice President, Aurelio Melendrez (Son of current Councilman Andy Melendrez), stated, “It’s embarrassing for all of us, its a good lesson to the community that anyone can be victimized.” Just for the record Aurelio Melendrez is a DETECTIVE for the Riverside Police Department! He goes on to say, “Police aren’t businessmen.” We suggest taking a course in accounting 101 at RCC. It’s there that they are incompetent with member monies, and I can pretty much assume they will be incompetent with Taxpayers Monies.

Press Enterprise article where Measure Z is tied to fire and police salaries. I find it repugnant once again City personal are out to community meetings pushing for the passing of Measure Z, but stating that they are their only for informational purposes. Makes you lose respect for fire and police, and city personal and leadership. The following is a propaganda video produced by the City of Riverside, paid by you, the taxpayer. Beware, this is another City of Riverside “SCHEME,” known as the “Partnership Compensation Model.” The City should not be in the business of doing business, but in the business of doing what is right for the taxpayer.

Sgt. Brian Smith of RPD, and also Union President, attempts to tell Riverside Taxpayers why Measure-Z should be passed. It seems to be that it is all about Smith and his associates, but nothing with regards to the taxpayer!

On September 21,2016 Assistant City Manager Marianna Maryshevitz explains the City Manager John Russo’s new “Partnership Compensation Model” at the Janet Goeske Senior Center.

After Maryshevitz completes her explanation of the City’s new compensation model, Local Taxpayer Advocate & Riversidian Kevin Dawson unleashes against his opinion on the truth of Measure-Z.

Is there any reason that the City of Riverside Taxpayers should question new City Manager John Russo on any of his high falluting ideas? Should we even consider our City Manager John Russo as relevant to the City of Riverside’s welfare? We need to renegotiate those union deals, or go broke. We cannot sustain these contracts. The past city negotiators were simply not good negotiators, and basically gave the farm away, in lieu of their responsibility to the taxpayer. Shameful. Many taxpayers feel as I do within our City of Riverside, “a profound sense of betrayal by our City Government.” This is what TMC is retrieving from our subscribers. Again they are questioning decisions made by are current and past City leadership. Why is it that our current leadership is unable to decipher the past wrong doing of our Council and justifiably make it right? So taxpayers have a right to ask about the newly hired City Managers view of the foregoing future of our City. Is his view of our City the same cookie cuter reproduction of the past? Is it “Partnership Compensation Model” that Russo placed in Oakland California? What happened there?

AND, “the most shocking fact of all is that the Riverside City payroll INCREASED by $10,000,000 between 2014 and 2015. The precise figure of our deficit. Think about it………” – Ron Todar

Bottom line, City Manager John Russo is not a proponent for the residents and taxpayer of the City of Riverside! You as a taxpayer have been had. Have your streets been fixed, trees cut, concerns of in home burglaries, theft from our front yards, drug deals, prostitution rings in our Wood Streets, drug deals in the Wood Streets, shootings in the Wood Street? Well Russo’s street has been fixed by the Riverside Gravy Train as expected. Sorry folks if your P.C., but the fact remains, “This is Piss Pour Politics at Hand,” and we should not tolerate it as taxpayers. Russo is again a parasite who feeds on the “gravy train” of Riverside Taxpayers and every other city taxpayer that he has nomadically strives through. Our Council is simply to dumb to distinguish the difference.

DID CITY OF RIVERSIDE MAYOR WILLIAM “RUSTY” BAILEY VIOLATE CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION’S RULES ON CAMPAIGNS?

VOTE NO ON MEASURE-Z!

REASONS TO VOTE NO ON MEASURE-Z PER KEVIN DAWSON AT THE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 1, 2016! IS MEASURE-Z A RUSSO MONSTER?

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

According to the San Bernardino Sentinel, Colton City Attorney Christina Talley has been relieved of her position as of September 18,2014, or could we say “fired?” Christina Talley works for the infamous Best, Best & Krieger, and incidentally has been hired by the City of Riverside through BB&K to be interim City Attorney, after former City Attorney Greg Priamos skipped town when he couldn’t handle the heat in the kitchen to Riverside County. Of course, the County Boys embraced Priamos with open arms. Accordingly, Ms. Talley appears to have been passed around to cities like a bad can of sardines beyond there expiration date. Cities continued to employ her, regardless of the smell she left behind. According to the article there is more to the story then meets the eye, not only was City of Colon Colton concerned with her ineptness with Brown Act regulations, whereby she allowed non-agendized items to be discussed by council. But even more discerning, was what occurred at a June 3 Colton Council meeting , at which a decision was made to place City Manager Stephen Compton on administrated leave. This was as a result of Compton’s inquiry with reference to questionable financial practices, including “off-the-book” projects in public works department which led him very close to uncovering details of how certain projects were funded, including several unauthorized projects which were being run out of the public works department. This of course, brought scrutiny, according to the article, toward the actions of public works director Amer Jakher, who enjoyed a close relationship with a majority of the of the city council. As the focus pointed to Jakher, some council members were pushing Compton to examine the city’s contract with Best, Best & Krieger and Talley, and potentially put the contract for city legal services out to bid.

In July of 2014, a group of Colton residents filed a complaint with the city to investigate alleged irregularities in the city’s public works department alleging potential misappropriation of public funds, gift of public funds and misuse of public funds which benefitted two city council members. The citizens provided documentation indicating that the “off the books” activity, i.e., work that had not been considered or approved by the city council, had indeed taken place in the public works division. That request was moved forward by Police Chief Steve Ward, who was then acting in the capacity of city manager during Compton’s absence. Chief of Police/City Manager Ward initiated an investigation and personally forwarded the request to Talley. The investigation was handed over to another Best Best & Krieger attorney, Ronald Ball, who is “of counsel” with the firm. Several weeks later it was discovered that Talley, however, neglected to provide Ball with the background documentation that had been provided to the city by the group of residents requesting the investigation. Thus, the investigation failed to focus on the “off-the-books” activity in the public works department that was at the root of the concerns expressed by the citizens group, and the final report reflected an incorrect timeline of events which discredited its conclusion that two of the members of the council, Frank Gonzales and Susan Oliva, had not benefited from the misapplication of resources in the public works department. Manipulation of the facts? Read the whole story in the September 19th article in the San Bernardino Setinel.

Beginning in August 2014, according to the San Bernardino Sentinel, Talley became less and less visible in Colton. She was replaced in some venues by Marco Martinez, a partner with Best Best & Krieger. In fact, Talley’s mishandling of the Colton account appears to have impacted her standing with Best Best & Krieger, which now appears to be in danger of losing Colton as a client altogether. Talley, who formerly had an office in Best Best & Krieger’s Irvine office, where she was formerly listed as an “associate,” has been consistently unavailable at that location since August. She is no longer listed as an “associate,” but is now deemed to be “of counsel,” an indication Best Best & Krieger is seeking to disassociate itself from her.

But in my eyes what we see is a powerful law firm who has been allowed to be part of the very fabric which ultimately represents the interest of the taxpayers. It certainly appears that they are their to protect their taxpayer paycheck with bad legal advice.

Well I would expect that the City of Riverside’s spokes hole and former PE reporter, Phil Pritchard may attempt to spin the story by just saying she left Colton to work for the City of Riverside… Watch Two Timing Talley’s antics unfold at today’s City Council Meeting, and you the taxpayer decide! Is she really inept, or really good at playing the field of City Politics? Should we allow uncontracted legal work to continue with BB&K? Should we allow BB&K Trash Attorneys to represent the taxpayers? I think not.

Councilman Andy Melendrez’s attempt to create the City of Riverside as a “Sanctuary City” appeared to be hidden according to many in the community and not brought forward at a Tuesday’s City Council Meeting. As a result, a formal Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint was filed by Fontana Council candidate Tressy Capps, specifically against Melendrez’s assertion that their would be no “fiscal impact” in the adoption of this resolution, as stated in the City Council Memorandum. The following is the filed complaint by Tressy Capps.

The following is the City Council Memorandum stating that there would be no “fiscal impact” with the adoption of this humanitarian resolution. The meaning of a resolution is defined as a firm decision to do something, or not to do something.

What was more discerning was this item/resolution it was placed on the Consent Calender, as some have indicated, a way to pass and sneak a real issue from the community. Rather than just passed, it was brought out from the consent calender for discussion. This play on politics does not make Andy a proponent for what’s right and wrong, as indicated by many in his ward. The resolution states the following: “WHEREIS: The City of Riverside hereby stands in support of sanctuary and humanitarian efforts or assistance in the processing and treatment of all immigrants, including those recently arriving in the United States..” According to the Press Enterprise, Melendrez stated that “the resolution would not have actually required the city to do anything, nor would it have committed any city funds.” Even our interim City Attorney Christina Talley chimed in when asked for an opinion by stating the following, “Based upon the face of the resolution, I didn’t see anything in that resolution that conflicted with federal or state law.” But when you look at the resolution statement it appears rather vaguely written, possibly not to directly take issue with the real point, “illegal” immigration. His point of stating “including those recently arriving in the United States,” would actually imply helping immigrants “illegally” in the country. It also seems that the City of Riverside supports efforts of efforts and assistance in the processing of all immigrants. According the statement, this would imply both “legal” and “illegal” immigrants. If this is true, the City of Riverside would effectively stating in this resolution that it supports breaking the law by supporting efforts to process “illegal” immigrants. This I would say is a direct conflict with Federal Law, and out of the scope of a local municipality, such as our City. Further, the definition of a “child” is someone under the age of 18 year of age, in some in some instances it may very well be under 19 years of age. The full original resolution is as follows:

Capps states that this resolution directly violates specifically page 4, item #6 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected Officials. She cited the item, “they will seek to insure that information provided by the city government to the public is accurate and clear.” Where is City Attorney Greg Priamos when we need him? Hell, he would just make matters worse.

According to some in the community, this resolution advocatess breaking Federal law.. Not only is he advocating breaking Federal Law, he is stating it would be acceptable for the City of Riverside to assume acceptance of those who have entered the country illegally. Some in the community feel this was done without consideration of those in his community who are legal, and need help, such as are veterans, homeless, residents struggling financially to make ends meet etc. On the other hand, proponents state that we need to ensure that the security, protection and needs of illegal or undocumented children are addressed on a humanitarian level. Which appears to be acceptable since immigration is a Federal issue. Though the term “children” has yet to be defined in these resolutions. Many city’s have adopted similar resolutions, even some states, there is really no conflict as such which would interfere with Federal laws. But what does this mean when a resolution such as this, is adopted at a local level?

Again, what happens if the whole investigation is dropped, who is responsible for the bill? You got it, we are! Should an incompetent City Manager Scott Barber reimburse the taxpayer for his inexperience? Then again attempting to sue the taxpayer as a direct result of his own personal conflicts?

UPDATE: CINDY ROTH AND THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER RECEIVES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, OVER A HALF A MILLION OVER THREE YEARS FOR “KEEP RIVERSIDE CLEAN AND BEAUTIFUL” PROGRAM, AS VOTED AT SEPTEMBER 23RD CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE ONLY NO VOTE BY COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS. INCIDENTALLY, COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS FOUND THIS QUITE PECULIAR ENOUGH THAT HE REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE “CONSENT CALENDER’ FOR DISCUSSION. The discussion led to questions regarding how Cindy Roth’s Greater Riverside Chamber is paid. First, the taxpayer must pay for this “Volunteer Program” in their “Trash Bill.” Five other cities in California wouldn’t think of doing this. Riverside does. Therefore, the issue of this item becomes an illegal charge or tax against the taxpayer! Since the charge comes from the Public Works Department, it must be brought forth for “bid.” Secondly, there must be a contractors contract, referencing item by item, how the taxpayer money is to be spent. Non of this has ever been done! With her attorney husband and now Senator, “Something seems to be Rotten in Denmark!” Question have arose over the disbursements of taxpayer monies, which appear to have never been reported to Council in the past. Taxpayers continue to argue that it is a “money laundering” scheme. Incidently, Cindy Roth, CEO/President, her husband is now Senator for the State of California, Richard Roth… In the past has done outside legal work for the City of Riverside, which has been allegedly been questionable with reference in how his work really benefited Riverside residents.

Cindy Roth and the Greater Riverside Chamber was also against Measure A, which was not in the best interest of the taxpayers, and evidently is why her behind the scenes political activities at City Hall have been seen as some, as a political powerhouse, which includes former CEO and Publisher of the Riverside Press Enterprise , Ron Redfern. Riverside, wouldn’t you think something is wrong in Denmark? At the cost of $574,754 over three years to the taxpayer in your Trash Bill? Now folks, this is a volunteer program… Technically according to City policy, since this money arrives from Public Works, this item must go out to bid, secondly, there must be a contractors contract initiated itemizing the cost of services provided. This was not done. Also, an expenditure report has never been given to the City to disclose a specific itemization of disbursements. So, where does the money go? With this in mind, questions arise to how the monies are actually spent. First of all, is there a specified account for this money? Or is this money just deposited in the Greater Riverside Chamber’s general fund? To possibly be used for Councilmember and Mayor special trips, campaigns etc.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN NOW, SINCE GREG SKIPPED TOWN TO THE COUNTY)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR TOXIC DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

The Greenpoint Avenue and Lake Street Sidewalk Construction was a Federal HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Funded Project or known as a CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Project. If these funds are not spent before a certain amount of time, they must be given back to the Federal Government. Checks were allegedly cut before the expiration date of funds, held in someones desk, then issued to the contractor or vendor at a later time. To do otherwise would be considered illegal. Any business person who receives a check, especially for the amount of close to a half a million dollars, does not wait 30 days to cash it. In this case, the check issued to Grand Pacific Contractor’s did. The contractor usually has employees to pay and vendors to pay. At the time Tom Boyd was Assistant Public Works Director. Was it possible he did not want to do the work? Did Siobhan Foster know of these discrepancies in the Public Works Department and the details of the CDBG funds? And did she leave the City of Riverside to the City of Pasadena for this reason? How about Former Assistant City Manager Michael Beck, Public Works Director Tom Boyd, Former City Manager Brad Hudson or even City Attorney Gregory Priamos? The question, is this an act of falsification of records?

01/05/2007 – IN AN INTEROFFICE MEMO DIRECTED TOWARD PURCHASING MANAGER ART TORRES REQUESTING TO PLEASE ADVERTISE ONLINE FOR BIDS ON THIS PROJECT JANUARY 8, 2007 FOR THE BID SUMISSION DATE OF FEBRUARY 7, 2007. BUT A PURCHASE ORDER & REQUISITION WERE ORDERED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR VENDOR: GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS INC. JANUARY 5, 2007 ACCORDING TO DOCUMENT.

CLICK DOCUMENT IMAGE TO VIEW

01/08/2007 – THE BIDING INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT IS RELEASED TO BE ADVERTISED ON LINE THIS DAY. BIDS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR CONSIDERATION FEBRUARY 7, 2007.

01/19/2007 – THIS IS GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS BID, THOUGH DATED JANUARY 19, 2007. IN ADDITION THERE IS NO RECEIVED DATE STAMP BY THE CITY ON THIS DOCUMENT TO SHOW ACTUAL DATE, IF ANY.

02/07/2007 – ACTUAL DATE BID OPENS AND CAN BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION. THIS DOCUMENT SHOW A COVER SHEET WITH CITY COUNCIL AWARD DATE OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007 AND A CONTRACT SIGN DATE OF MARCH 13, 2007 BUT THE DATE ON THE COVER SHEET IS FEBRUARY 7, 2007. WAS THIS BACKDATED?

CLICK DOCUMENT IMAGE TO VIEW

02/20/2007 – CITY COUNCIL AWARDS BID TO GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS

03/12/2007 – A LETTER EMAILED BY FORMER PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR SEAN GILL, DESCRIBES THAT THE PROJECT HAS THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS AND COMMENCE MARCH 12, 2007, THEREFORE PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN AND AROUND APRIL 12, 2007.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

03/13/2007 – GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS AGREEMENT SIGNED

03/30/2007 – PURCHASE ORDER BY ART TORRES, IN THE PROCESSING OF ACTIVITY SECTION, IT SHOWS A REQUESTED DATE AND ENTRY DATE OF 01/05/2007, PRIOR TO THE JANUARY 8, 2007 BID RELEASING DATE.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

04/13/2007 – CHECK ISSUED TO GRAND PACIFIC CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $485,545.50 BUT CASHED 5/17/2012, ALMOST 30 DAYS LATER. THE AGREEMENT STATES THAT “MONTHLY PROGRESS PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9-3.2 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS”.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

05/17/2007 – AFTER OVER THIRTY DAYS CHECK IS CASHED

06/05/2007 – ACTUAL WORK COMPLETION DATE, APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS POST AGREEMENT. CITY MUST NOW RECEIVE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FROM CONTRACTOR WITHIN 35 DAYS.

Inconsistencies arrise when viewing document four. Document states that the City Council Awarded the bid to Grand Pacific Contractors 02/20/2007 and that the contract was signed 03/13/2007. Yet the document date is 02/07/2007 at 2:00pm. Was the document manipulated or imputed at that date with predetermined information?

The initial processing activity was that it was requested by Philip Hannawi 01/05/2007 and entered 01/05/2007. What is also noticeable is that Grand Pacific Contractors has a vendor number assigned as of this same date. The cost was approved 03/20/2007 and the last printing was 03/20/2007. The terms of the vendor is Net 30 days. What’s compelling is that the acceptance of this bid by the city 01/05/2007, is in contradiction to the initial and formal bid advertisement date of 01/08/2007 and bid opening date of 02/07/2007.

“Thirty-five (35) days after City accepts the Work and files a Notice of Completion, City shall pay Contractor the amounts City deducted and retained from its progress payments, except such sums thereof which are required by law or authorized by the Contract to be further retained”. Progress payments are incremental payments made to the contractor at each level of completion. For example, the contractor can say after a week this portion of the project will be completed. Then an incremental payment will be made to the contractor to pay employees and their vendors etc. What occurred was that the vendor was paid 90% ($485,545.50) in one lump sum prior to the job initiation, with the remaining 10% ($53,945.50) at job completion as indicated by vendor. The records attained were the result of a public records act request. Agreement also states that “Monthly progress payments shall be made in accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications”.

UPDATE: 09/11/2012: CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY: SHE’S BACK! Public Speaker Karen Wright and Coordinator of the Janet Goeske Center Friday Morning Club is back! And City Council wasted no time embracing this welcome with two of Riverside’s finest, also known as ‘Ronny’s Bouncers.’ After Council Meeting was adjourned, Ms. Wright gave the Council and Mayor a lesson in government transparency. Not to be undone, Ronny’s Bouncer’s were sent to the Mayor and Council’s rescue to cease this act of afterhours public speaking..

To this day, Chief Sergio Diaz has not apologize to Ms. Wright after accosting her on the city council floor on her public speaking position on Tequesquite Park. What gives with the Chief? Does he continue to think that Riversidian’s remain in their homes in their underwear eating cheetos? Yes, of course, I admit this is what we all do in Riverside, but what about the apology? I mean that Councilman Paul Davis made a public apology a couple of weeks ago to a fire inspector, and that didn’t appear to be at all that painful..

The hot item of the night was Item #9 a resolution to adopt Temporary Economic Development Rates (TED), or in other words, let’s give discounted electric rates to new start up businesses over the next three years that we choose. This would work as a sliding scale decrease beginning with a 30% discount ending in 12/13, decreasing to 20% ending in 12/14, decreasing to 10% ending in 12/15, and decreasing to 0% discount thereafter. The whole idea is to attract new businesses to Riverside, since many now our moving to states such as Arizona and Nevada. The contradiction of this plan is that the residents of the City of Riverside own their own electric utilities, unlike other municipalities. If you own a home in Riverside, you own a part of the electric utility company, why should we pay more? Therefore, shouldn’t the discount be spread across the board to residents and small business owners in order to stimulate more economic growth? If the discount was spread across the board to all, there would be more money available for businesses to reinvest in their companies and hire more people, for residents there would be more money left in their budget to spend in town at small businesses etc., it would therefore be a win, win situation. Many are asking, “How does this resolution pan out to the electric contract engaged with the Press Enterprise?” Yes, what you read can possibly and certainly make a difference. Even Riverside’s Chamber President, Cindy Roth got into the act submitting a letter in favor of this resolution. And we all know by now, the Council and Mayor listen to Cindy over their constituents.. In actuallity, is this resolution a Proposition 26 violation and can be considered a gift of public funds when it is only reserved for a few?

It also appears there are miscellaneous fees and charges that these businesses will still be responsible for such as Energy Users Tax, Utility Users Tax and good ol’ Cap and Trade Premiums (Which is a Charge on Industrial CO2 emissions). Which many legitimate scientist state it is a scam to pad local municipalities. We haven’t even mentioned property taxes. So is it still a good idea? or is Arizona or Nevada still a better choice?

From the Mayor’s Ball on the 6th floor of the new Citrus Towers, also know as BB&K Central, A possible new Multi-Modal Transportation Hub, are Electric Bonds actually ‘Hedge Funds’? What happened to the monies written off and not paid for by the Department of Finance, is the taxpayer still responsible? Is the Priamos Tape and example of Pension Spiking? Local Blogger Mary Shelton, of Five Before Midnight, has conflicting words with the Mayor….. And public speaking, leading to public sleeping…stay tuned….more to come…. and more to come…THE FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE RUSSELL LEACH DEPOSITIONS COMING SOON! WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WITH COUNCILMAN WILLIAM “RUSTY” BAILEY AND THEN SGT. VALMONT GRAHAM? YOU BE THE JUDGE! THE WHOLE DEPOSITION IN PRINT!

Others are asking the question of why city management made this decision, over council? And if they actually can do this, or if they were only excercising section 407 of the City Charter, which states that “Neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any of it’s members shall interfere with execution by the City Manager (now Scott Barber) of his/her powers and duties, or order.” TMC posted an article on this subject, “The Red Light Scam, Council Mayhem on the Streets of Riverside?” Even now, others are questioning the activities of Councilman Steve Adams, if there was any alleged intervention with City Management. He may call it political. But his name continues to come up time after time whereby his alleged actions have costed city taxpayers a mint. Some are now coining him “Mr. Liability”, after statement allegedly made in staff meetings by City Attorney Greg Priamos.

In addition, Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey was also a supporter of the the red light cameras and voted on their continuance. Why continue with this endeavor when red light camera’s are currently runnning at lossess in excess of $600,000.00 to the taxpayer? Why continue when many cities all over the country are dropping them, even Redlands, CA. So why continue? A good question to ask Mayoral Candidate Rusty Bailey.

THIS IS NOT SMALL POTATOES, WAS THE DIRT REMOVED CONTAMINATED? THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ENGINEER’S CALCULATIONS WERE OFF BY 1,800 TRUCKLOADS (20,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL). QUITE SIGNIFICANT FOR JUST AN ERROR. ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY OR THE TAXPAYER WILL HAVE TO DISH OUT NOT MORE THAN $200,000 TO SPREAD IT AROUND, THE NEW DIRT THAT IS.

THIS IS A TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY TO COME TOGETHER…PLEASE SEND YOU’RE “PACKAGED DIRT” TO CITY HALL TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY FINISH THE PARK!

JUST FOR LAUGHS..

A PAST INSCRIPTION OF THE FUTURE OF WHAT THE CITY NEEDS MOST ON A CRATE OF ORANGES?

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN…

RIVERSIDE CITRUS GROVES, CIRCA 1930, MT. RUBIDOUX CAN BE SEEN IN THE DISTANCE AT THE UPPER LEFT CORNER AND PACHAPPA HILL TOWARD THE UPPER CENTER.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

I believe that’s the way it needs to be handled again, Councilman Melendrez said. It should be referred to Governmental Affairs, that three council members should participate plus the community. Gardner is not part of the Governmental Affairs but I would invite him to participate.. and be an active participant.

After Melendrez stated his position he received a standing ovation…TMC believes that if Counilman Melendrez had shown this type of leadership before, he could have been in the Mayor’s runoff, now the constituents have no choice.

OTHER COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS…

Mayor Ron: I must repeat that the need for Conflict resolution is best done as a committee as a whole.

Councilman Melendrez: Mayor, it didn’t work the last time, that’s why I am here.

Councilman Davis: I have to openly admit that it was a mistake! It’s about process, and the process was not followed properly. This is not about businesses but about residential desires. You look at the business desires compared to the residential desires. It’s hard to weigh. In this case it’s about the residential desires. I would like to make a motion, I respectfully disagree with you Mayor. Things are not done the same way they were 20 to 30 years ago (making these comment toward the mayor) things are done differently, we are wired in a wireless world and we need to respect that…that we move forward, rather than do things the old way, because a lot of the times they just don’t work anymore. If the Governmental Committee would allow a substitution of Councilman Gardner. That would be my motion that we take no action and postpone 60 days..and I hoping to see a second ( a motion which Melendrez solidifies later, but the Mayor thinks it already happened).

It should be vetted between Gardner (Ward 1) and Melendrez (Ward 2). The rest of us five have no dog in the show here. This is about ward 1 and ward 2 they should get together. In other words it’s about Melendrez and Gardner.

Davis offered stepping down from his Governmental Affairs position and allowing Ward 1 Mike Gardner to take his position in order that he can work with Melendrez at that level. We need to see what the residents would like to see, and taking into consideration the businesses as well. Taking the item 20 to the full council for a vote. Basically the two can come back with their findings and bring them to council so that council can make a better decision.

Councilman Gardner: This has been a much bigger issue than I thought it was. And for that I apologize.. There were things here that I did not see. I thought this would be relatively simple ( the issue of redistricting) and relatively not controversial. There were things here that I did not see, but incidently agrees with the mayor about dealing it as a whole…and…and…and..(continues to ramble).. an interruption by Councilman Melendrez while Gardner speaks and Melendrez says, I will second Pauls motion..Mayor replies..I thought you did, but Melendrez actually did not.

Gardner says he wouldn’t offer a second but proposes to put this off for 60days..council to hold more meetings to talk…I think the community has spoken in more than one way.

Councilman Melendrez: Remember I’m a member of the Downtown Partnership, a committee member, the downtown partnership said they had it in the works since 2002, They didn’t invite the councilman member until 2010.. I’m also a member of the Chamber Commerce, and get along with both the downtown partnership and the chamber, and supportive of the chamber, except when I think they are inaccurate. I think redistricting is here about community, not business. I strongly believe that. And when I look at what we as council, here to propose. We have ten items listed, I’m going to read four of them. We have ten items listed, I’m going to read four. Maintain Continutiy of existing wards to the extent possible, draw wards that are compact and continuous , use natural geographical boundaries to the extent possible, maintain cohesive neighborhood and community interest to the extent possible. I went through all ten and it said nothing about business. There is nothing here that says listen to what businesses have to say and route business around them.. So TMC ask, how does Cindy Roth by pass these guidelines and convince the Council to break them?

It’s always good to hear from Councilman Adams. When he talks to the people..I want to thank everybody here to night, it’s a great demonstration of democracy. I work for the people of ward 7, and looking toward the crowd..says ”you are our bosses”. he went on to say…and this is why Riverside is the greatest city in the state. Finally and emphatically said.. I started to think, is this one of those “say what you mean and mean what you say moment”?

Brian Hawley, Vice Chair of the Greater Riverside Chamber. The chamber represents the interest of its members, this includes of several members in the Market Place who pay dues as if they already were. We believe a unified downtown benefits the entire city.

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno: As I looked at redistricting, I went and read the information on your web site and the first thing that popped out to me was ‘equalizing the population count for each ward’. How do you get into a controversy over a business division line out of that statement? What a waste of time. I stand before some intelligent people, I’m sure, and I don’t understand the difference between population and business? This vote should have been a “slam dunk”, and for what purpose are we here? Synergy for business? Thats what you all said last week. What happens to synergy for the people? That’s your argument

Just because the chamber queen comes before you with her letter in hand, and her lovely little speech, you change the direction and the ultimate purpose of redistricting. Really? Let’s just change ward one into Cindy Land. Andy Melendrez made a good argument that the Arlington Business District is in two wards. So your argument about making it one program, doesn’t fly. The actual natural boundaries is the freeway (91 freeway) , not the railroad tracks Councilman Gardner… Just because the Downtown area is not very successful and their business district is (Market Place), you want to take it over. Insignificant? Well if it is so insignificant, than why are we doing it?

David Mudge said we market our offices and area as if it is Downtown. Leasing office space in Downtown is doing extremely well for us. If I marketed office space to someone in Orange County, as it was not Downtown, it wouldn’t get much attraction. One of the big attractions is feeling that they are downtown.

Tom Schultz said, one of Webster’s definitions of ‘rape’ is an outrageous violation. I consider this a rape of the East Side by the Chamber of Commerce.

It also appears that The Convention Center, The Downtown Library and some land called The Airport Clear Zone were also released from the 2003 COP’s when financing was being assembled for the new Convention Center.

In the new transaction, the financing involved will still require the property known as Riverside City Hall and the new Lincoln Avenue Police Station to remain as collateral. As TMC understands public buildings used as collateral, the structure is not what is considered, it is the value of the land. This is item #7 being brought to City Council this Tuesday July 24, 2012, Be There! Don’t forget to comment on our blog site.

What am hearing about the Mission Inn Museum? How about being taxpayer paid rent to Mr. Robert’s, or is it Mrs. Robert’s these days? The Redevelopment Agency of The City Of Riverside entered into lease agreement with Duane Roberts Historic Mission Inn for a pre-paid amount of $1,255,873.00 to December 23,2022. The Redevelopment Agency of The City Of Riverside also has the optional subleasing right, which it used to sublease to the Mission Inn Foundation, a non-profit organization, initiated by the City of Riverside.

In this sublease, the Mission Inn Foundation pays no rent to the Redevelopment Agency of The City of Riverside. The argument in the lease is that it has already been paid for by The Redevelopment Agency. Is this a gift of public funds to the ‘burrito king’ Duane Roberts? Well the 100K voted through by City Council. Mayor Pre-Temp William “Rusty” Bailey even appeared to be giddy on the dais. Was he feeling the illusional power of the Mayor?

UPDATE: 08/06/2012: WHAT IS IT WITH THE CITY’S NEW BUZZ WORD “THE FAB FIVE” THAT HAS LABELED A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS AT WEEKLY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS? MORE TO COME..

UPDATE: 08/09/2012: REUTERS SAYS SAN BERNARDINO’S BANKRUPTCY MAY START A TREND FOR CALIFORNIA CITIES. THE UPSWING IN BANKRUPTCY FILINGS COULD SIGNIFY A LACK OF ABILITY, BUT A LACK OF WILLINGNESS TO PAY DEBT SERVICE AT THE EXPENSE OF OF OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS. YES, “YOU HAVE TO PAY THE RENT”! AS ONE COUNCILMAN RUSTY BAILEY TOLD ONE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT. YES INDEED…OTHERS ARE BLAMING UNSUSTAINABLE PENSIONS. AS MANY FEEL THESE UNION PENSION CONTRACTS WERE NEGOTIATED NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYER. THEREFORE A BREACH OF TRUST AND CONSEQUENTLY SHOULD LEGALLY BE DEEMED NULL AND VOID. ONE INTERESTING CONCEPT..

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ALSO WAS THE RECEPIENT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING IN 2010 BY THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSICIATION. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO THESE AWARDS ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING? WE RECENTLY AS A CITY WERE AWARDED MOST “INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR 2012”, BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT CALLS THEMSELVES THE INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY FORUM. I WONDER WHAT WAS THE DECIDING POINT WAS? RUMOR IS WE HAD THEM WITH RESIDENTS EATING CHEETOS IN THEIR UNDERWEAR..

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR GOOD REASON, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPHALL SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS! CONTRIBUTORS WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTED… YES, WE EXPECT THE JAIL TIME FOR THAT ONE… THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

At the June 26th City Council Meeting former deputy city attorney Raychele Sterling gave kudos to Councilman Paul Davis for calling City Attorney Gregory Priamos “out on his lies” the prior week…it was nice to see that somebody would actually do that.

She went on to say that I’m here to talk about Employee issues, which appear to be on going. People seem to be completely out of their minds, creating so much liability for you (referring to city management). As I have said, over and over again, this stems not from personnel issue, but is a policy issue. You continue to have employees sue you, you continue to have employees file claims, then your management comes back and says, geee.. maybe we should continue to retaliate against them because this will be great for our law suit and I’m sure the jury would really appreciate that. Well you might as well just add a couple more zeros to the check we have to pay out! Well it not changing..and you have to change because the law suits will continue to come..

She went on to say, that if Tom Boyd, Public Works Director, calls any special meetings, or you believe he is harassing you, or retaliating against you, or if he writes a work performance evaluation that you don’t agree with..I want you to give me call, my number is 951-203-9952. I will be happy to represent you pro bono, no charge! Because this is going to stop! TMC learned that a city employee who filed a civil lawsuit against the city a little more than a month ago was being set up for an administrative hearing with one day notice. This was with Public Works Director Tom Boyd along with the usual suspects. When Sterling contacted them, and said she would be representing this employee, the administrative hearing was called off, and business as usual was stopped for the moment.

She went on to talk about her grandparents who are absolutely disgusted with the council, with respect to her 87 year old grandmother who she said, “I never heard a cuss word come out of her mouth”. Her grandmother said, ” you go there (to city council meetings) and they might as well give you the finger”.

“We have no government here”, Sterling said, “you give all your power to Scott, your city manager, and you don’t monitor anything that he is doing, and he makes you end up looking like asses a lot of the times, and that’s really unfortunate, especially for people running for mayor. You don’t want to be associated with that Rusty. You said Jesus Christ is your inspiration. I can’t ever think of an situation where Jesus Christ would ever under any circumstances permit employees to be just tortured the way that they are here at the City, and you have an obligation, not only as a Councilman and a Christian to make sure that stops immediately”

Public speaker Paul Chavez spoke prior to Sterling regarding an issue that occurred the prior week concerning workshop highlighting redistricting. Mr. Chavez was surprised and disappointed in what the council did. He said, “usually when you have a workshop, you don’t take a vote, because it is a workshop……you don’t make that type of a decision, you can have a concept of which way you want to go, or a direction of where you want to go, but you don’t make a decision”. He went on to say that a vote was taken.. “I don’t know if it is legal or not… that’s why you have a city attorney”, (referencing City Attorney Gregory Priamos). “The point that was very disturbing, was that the chamber (referencing the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce presided by CEO/ President Cindy Roth), came in and made a proposal. I attended some of the other meetings for redistricting and nothing was mentioned. Up to the last minute it was a ‘workshop’, you were all here (referencing the council), and you heard everybody talking about different things of what they like and disliked.”

“The chamber came in and told you that they wanted the ‘Market Place’”, (a district located in Councilman Andy Melendrez’s Ward). And you said (the present council without Concilman Andy Melendrez present) “that’s a good idea, let’s all take it”! Chavez said “the one that wasn’t spoken to was Mr. Melendrez (Councilman Melendrez), he was taken off guard. That was very good planning for the chamber, and you guys all went for it. It makes me very disappointed in all of you. Also, it shows that those who are running for mayor, what kind of person are you? (I’d imagine Chavez was referring to Councilman “Rusty” Bailey who claims to be an independent voice for Riverside). Is that what we want as citizens, you don’t listen to us.. that’s the way I say. I had a friend that was there and I asked him if you were going to the city council, he said no , what for? They just look at you, they let you talk but they don’t really hear you or acknowledge what you saying . So if this continues on you may have a lawsuit on your bench again, just as it has happened before and they have won, and we as taxpayer have to pay for that. I wish you would reconsider when this comes up again, and stand for the people, not for the chamber, or our you guys bought out”?

I guess the question is for Councilpeople, anything Cindy wants, Cindy gets? What would give Cindy Roth that much prominence? Is it such a big deal to take the Marketplace and integrate it with the Downtown? Why would they consider doing this in the first place? Is it because it’s technically part of the East Side, and that has a negative connotation with many? If we christened the East Side Marketplace as now part of Downtown, would the perceived visual perceptions change and now not be associated with the current perceptions of that nasty East Side? Will the “East Side” now be just known as “the other side of the tracks”? But Riverside Chamber’s, President/CEO, Cindy Roth wanted it that way, and the council thought it was a good idea. Anything Cindy wants, Cindy gets? For whatever reason it was done, what can I say, even independent voice of the people Rusty Bailey thought it was a good idea. But Roth’s connections with the cities who’s who are appearing to be very clear.

Even her husband Richard Roth currently running for State Senate has clear ties with the City of Riverside by doing legal work for them. Not to mention, he is part of the Board of Directors for the Riverside Chamber. But now presented as the new improved and patriotic General Richard Roth for Senate. Roth in conjunction with former Riverside Councilman Dom Betro had at a luncheon meeting with Democratic Senate Candidate Steve Clute, who was asked to step down from his running position….something for the community to think about regarding the generalisimo hardballing the Senate position…

IT WAS TO LATE FOR SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF TO HIT THE TOWN DRINKING AT THE USUAL WATERING HOLES AS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WENT ON BEYOND THE 12 MIDNIGHT HOUR.

THE REDISTRICTING ISSUE VOTED BY CITY COUNCIL 6-0 TO TAKE THIS ISSUE TO GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. CRITICISM OF THE COUNCIL CAME UNDERFIRE WEEKS AGO WHEN RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CEO/PRESIDENT CINDY ROTH MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT ‘THE MARKETPLACE’ (PART OF COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ’S WARD 2) BE PART OF DOWNTOWN (WARD 1 COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER’S DISTRICT). WHILE A PACKED HOUSE OF RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNERS FILLED COUNCIL CHAMBER, THE MAJORITY SPOKE AGAINST THE MOVE. PUBLIC SPEAKER, CHRISTINA DURAN EVEN SUBMITTED AND PLACED COUNCIL ON NOTICE WITH AN OBJECTION LETTER. THOSE IN FAVOR WERE THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP AND OF COURSE, THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BOTH WHO RECEIVE CITY TAXPAYER MONIES FOR THEIR ENDEAVORS. COUNCILMAN MELENDREZ COMMENTED ON THE TRUE PURPOSE OF RESDRICTING. REDISTRICTING IS ABOUT POPULATION, AND NOWHERE IT IS TO BE USED TO FAVOR BUSINESSES. FOR THE MOMENT, ‘THE CINDY LAND’ DEBACLE REMAINS ON HOLD.

THE ISSUE OF FUNDING FOR THE PURPLE PIPE REMAINS IN LIMBO FOR THE MOMENT, WHILE A PACKED HOUSE SPOKE AGAINST IT. PUBLIC SPEAKER SCOTT SIMPSON PROVIDED AND PLACED THE CITY ON NOTICE WITH AN OBJECTION LETTER. SIMPSON WENT BEYOND THE 3 MINUTES WHICH TRIGGERED RONNY’S BOUNCERS (RPD) TO ESCORT HIM FROM THE PODIUM. AS SIMPSON MOVED AWAY FROM THE PODIUM AND BACK TO HIS SEAT, HE CONTINUED TO READ HIS OBJECTION. THAT WAS A SIGHT TO SEE.. FOR THAT, TMC SHOUTS OUT, A ‘THAT A BOY’! THE CITIZENS ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE…

TMC HAS OBTAINED SCOTT SIMPSON’S OBJECTION LETTER TO THE PURPLE PIPE WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT CITY COUNCIL.

QUESTIONS AROSE IF RECLAIMED WATER IS SAFE FOR PLANTS, AND IF PEOPLE AND CHILDREN ARE SAFE ON THE GROUNDS WHERE IT IS USED. RIVERSIDE CITRUS GROWERS ALREADY MADE THEIR CASE THAT IT CANNOT BE USED FOR CITRUS. ON SAFETY AND CEQA GUIDELINES (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT), THE CITY SAID THEY WERE ABLE TO ‘BY PASS’ CEQA. LEAVING QUESTIONS OF HOW CAN THE ISSUE OF THE SAFETY OF RECLAIMED WATER BYPASS CEQA?

THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE RED LIGHT CAMERA STAY, AFTER MAYOR BREAKS 3-3 COUNCIL TIE (COUNCILMAN MELENDREZ, MAC ARTHUR AND DAVIS VOTE AGAINST THEIR CONTINUED USE) WITH MAYOR LOVERIDGE BRINGING IN THE DECIDING VOTE TO FURTHER STUDY THE ISSUE OF MAKING IT COST EFFECTIVE. COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS LOBBIES IN FAVOR OF CAMERAS, AND USES EXAMPLES OF SAFETY AND DEATHS, AND AS ADAMS SAYS..’BODIES’. MANY CITIES ALTOGETHER HAVE DISMANTLED RED LIGHT CAMERAS DUE TO COST, SAFETY ISSUES AND THE USE OF COMPANY PSUEDO STATISTICS DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. COUNCILMAN ADAMS HAS BEEN AT THE BRUNT OF CRITICISM REGARDING ISSUES OF NEPOTISM DUE HIS BROTHER RON ADAMS HIRED AS A RED LIGHT CAMERA PHOTO EXPERT.

UPDATE: 07/17/2012: WILL RON BRING THE LOVE ON HOME TO BILL BAILEY? THE MAYOR’S ENDORSEMENT FOR THE MAYOR’S CANDIDANCY..WHO WILL IT BE? THE GIGGLES OF EXCITEMENT ARE APPEARING TO OCCUR ON MAYOR CANDIDATE’S BAILEY’S FACEBOOK PAGE, AS HE EXPRESSES A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE RELEASED IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS REGARDING A SIGNIFICANT ENDORSEMENT…

AT TODAYS PRESS CONFERENCE, ADKISON PRESENTED HIS BANCRUPTCY PREVENTION PLAN AND SIGNED A PLEDGE TO DO SO. HE CHALLENGED RUSTY TO DO THE SAME. THIS PLAN IS NEEDED, WITH A REJECTIONS FROM THE STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT IN EXCESS OF $90 MILLION AND A NEW 218 LAW SUIT, THE GENERAL FUND WILL BE HIT HARD, CUTS NEED TO BE MADE STARTING WITH THE MAYOR’S OFFICE! IS THERE MORE SALICIOUS INFORMATION COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE WITH REGARDS TO OPPONENT WILLIAM “RUSTY” BAILEY?

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN…MAIN STREET, LOOKING FROM CURRENT CITY HALL (CIRCA 1930)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR GOOD REASON, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPHALL SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS! CONTRIBUTORS WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTED… YES, WE EXPECT THE JAIL TIME FOR THAT ONE… THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

What the Press Enterprise has not reported, is that these rate hikes were brought to the attention of the City Council and the Mayor many many times over by Self Proclaimed City Auditor Vivian Moreno. With denials and dismissive responses from Councilmembers such as Mike Gardner and Andy Melendrez, both incidently candidates for mayor. We are not critics as the PE would like to state, but responsible and educated citizens reading the city’s own public records, and asking the questions which the constituents really want to know. Many times the answers are dismissive and contradictory to the public records at hand. How should we as citizens respond if not to continue to ask the questions, until they can finally admit the truth. If public records state their will be an increase from 2012 to 2013 their will be an increase, if not, correct the records. But now, it appears that the city has been compelled to admit the truth. We warned of the purple pipe reclamation program, with an increase of $2.00. A program that does not benefit the citizens in Riverside, especially when the City of Riverside is one of the few cities which owns their own water rights. We are only at forty percent capacity the rest we sell to other municipalities at a profit. If the water table was to exceed the fifty foot mark from the surface, this would endager building and infrastructure foundations. Therefore the water table must be monitored closely and harvested accordingly. Accordingly, sewer rates from July 1, 2009 to July 1, 2013 for a Basic Multi-Family Dwelling have increase from $14.94 to $25.77, this is an increase of 42%. Currently $21.26 as of July 1, 2011 to $23.97 July 1, 2012, and increase of 13%. Sewer rates going up, $2.00 in July 2012, up to $3.00 in 2013.

The tiered water and electrical rate hikes, by manipulation of the number scales. A new charge for mosquito abatement for some household at $8.00 per household. I just found out that back alley I must clear of weeds every summer is the city’s property. In addition this is under duress of a $1,000 fine for not clearing the city’s property. Mad yet? In addition, no one resident receives credit for cost and time of cleaning the city’s property. Even the fire department is beginning to charge fees for services. You would think that our tax money would suffice. But it appears that these may have been implemented to sustain the unsustainable, especially the pensions. These were labor negotiations by city leadership that were not in the best interest of the citizens. Storm drain maintenance hikes from $2.83 to $5.82, to sustain storm drain maintenance, street sweeping and of course which leads to a reason to cite constituents with parking tickets to sustain new parking projects etc. Trash rates will go up $0.46 per month beginning in July 2012. All constituents were denied a real say in the matter or were misinformed. We can say ‘fiduciary negligence.’ But it won’t stop there, there are the bonds which are coming due as a result of the Renaissance debacle. The city will be blaming Governor Brown and the state for banning redevelopment, for the money they say will sustain the payment on those bonds. But that’s not how it works. The State of California stopped Redevelopment because of the abuse. They will blame the state, while the city will not take responsibility, because that will mean they are now apt at making good decisions. But what you find that does not change in the long run. Because in the long run it is you who will have to pay for it in increase property taxes.

“When I see a spade I call it a spade…” – Oscar Wilde

It is no wonder that city residents feel they are habitually terrorized by the city and code enforcement agents who slowly drive by residents home to see what kind of violations they can find. Yes many have quietly said it could be Cuba or even the Third Reich, but I have to continue to remind them we live in a city called Riverside, also know as “The All American City”.

Is Redevelopment really over? The State of California says it is, but will municipalities create something different? Originally, Redevelopment was created to combat blight. Areas of cities that didn’t contribute to the overall tax structure. As Redevelopmentevolved it tended to benefit friends and others close to the Mayor, City Council and Management, rather than the overall community. Established businesses which were contributing to the economy were then hit with another tool, ‘eminent domain.’ But the irony is, that the visionaries of government who saw an illusionary and unattainable conception created in essence blight. Currently what we have downtown that is blighted and created by the Renaissance program under the supervision of the Mayor and City Council at a cost of close to 2 billion dollars to the taxpayer. In addition, does not make a penny for the community as it was intended. They can blame it on the loss of redevelopment, but it couldn’t logically work with it. Another improvisational plan appears to be in the works. Infrastructure Finance Districts, originally created and intended to work one way, just as redevelopment, will they be strategically morphed again as redevelopment was, to the benefit of a few? While on one hand, the taxpayer are just feeling protected by the end of redevelopment, others are recreating an alternative gravy train. Let’s make no bones about it, Pavlovian would be jealous of how much salivation exudes in the mouths of politicians on this thought. Yes you may say it is a dogs world, but here’s how infrastructure finance districts work: a group of property owners (or residents if there are more than a dozen) in the specified area vote to allow a portion of property taxes that would ordinarily go to the general fund to be diverted to pay for construction and improvements to public property — things like libraries, parks and recreational facilities. But ordinarily, property owners such as resident are not likely to go to the city and ask for them to place it on a ballot initiative. So what may happen, would be the city goes to the people with a ballot initiative that the city would benefit the property owners. This is quite slick… this is what would happen, financially speaking, property taxes would not go up, but the general fund doesn’t get as much money. The City would go along with the decreased amount in the general fund because, in theory, these public enhancements cause nearby property values to rise, ultimately putting more property taxes into the general fund in the future. But currently the City’s has been spending more than they are taking in. So again, will this new concept debacle cause additional increases in property taxes at some point? Probably so.. therefore people need to think before they vote, those who don’t vote, need to vote. If you don’t vote, you are allowing your representatives to be truly unattended. It is your duty to be part of the checks and balance system which protects our community. Without it, we will continue to be afraid of government, whereby government should be afraid of the people. We therefore hae to ask ourselves, does government fear us? Or do we fear the government? Thomas Jefferson said it best, “When governments fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”. Government is our servant, not our master!” When the people fear the government, as with code enforcement abuse, tax abuse, service fees abuse, hidden tax abuse, a tiered utility rate abuse and the feeling that nothing can be done…you have allowed government to have victory.

It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONE TWO STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM